March 15, 2013

"They see the pope as a Supreme Court justice they can't intimidate. The Supreme Court scares the heck out of the left because to them it's infallible. Now, they succeeded. Obama and the left somehow succeeded in turning John Roberts when it came to the constitutionality of Obamacare, but they can't turn the pope."

I was futzing with a new channel lineup yesterday and happened across a Catholic channel and was greeting with an American panel discussing the new pope.

The moderator, a woman, was going on and on about American policies and the deep divide between left and right in this country, to which she tried to say how divided the American Catholic leaders were on the matter. She asked another panel member whether this new pope would be considered more liberal or conservative from an American standpoint.

The man, also an American, responded that the pope is not supposed to be liberal or conservative, that the Church is not a democracy and is not based on democratic principles, so terms like liberal and conservative don't mean much in terms of church policy.

Of course there have been reformers and one particularly famous reformation (maybe you've heard of it) involving some nails and a door. But it seems to me that if there is a right (apolitically speaking) way of doing things within Catholicism, in God's eyes, why would it ever change? Ever?

We're Catholic. Sadly too many Catholics get scripture from secular media. I think it is great when a non Catholic reads Catholic teaching and understands our positions are grounded NOT in hate or phobia, but love.

It's remarkable how quickly the gay marriage issue became a litmus test for whether someone is right-thinking and decent. In a few years it's gone from being a non-issue, to a respectable debate, to a black and white, good and evil "struggle for rights."

In some ways the Catholic Church acts as a drag anchor against the forces of modernity. Their teachings about sex are to my way of thinking restrictive and stultifying. But maybe it's a good thing that a significant fraction of humanity follow the Church's teachings. Sexual expression can be just as joy denying as sexual repression, and prudery has its satisfactions.....At any rate, the Catholic Church came down on the right side of eugenics and Marxism. They've gotten more things right than wrong.

I'm not Catholic - or religious, for that matter - but I'm happy that Catholics are happy and South Americans are ecstatic and Argentinians rapturously overjoyed and Liberals are pulling their hair out.

The other dirty little secret that the mediarati don't want you to know: most of the world's 1.2B Catholics now live in the 3rd world, and they really don't give a shit about the 1st world problems the commentators have with their Catholicism. Just not on their radar at all.

Weird. It seems like lots of folks who don't otherwise believe in miracles apparently were expecting one: that is, that the College of Cardinals would elect a Pope who would suddenly come out in favor of abortion and gay marriage (or at least wouldn't oppose them).

AndyR wrote:"Actually, the media see the Pope as a bigot, but since it's not polite to call the Pope a bigot, they are trying to figure out how to make it clear what they think without explicitly saying it."

You have often written here that you do not think the gay community will attempt to force churches to adhere to the drift of the country regarding gay marriage. But here you reveal that the "bigotry" label will apply to all who disagree with your position and that the "gay community" will mobilize against the Churches that don't fall in line and both support and sanctify gay marriage. Bigotry indeed.

whether this new pope would be considered more liberal or conservative from an American standpoint.

Not only is the Church not a democracy.....the American [USA] portion of the Church is in the minority. The majority of church, which exists outside of the USA are those who are the most fervent about their faith, meaning they don't just put their faith on like a nice Sunday outfit and then leave it in the closet for the rest of the week.

Clue to Liberals.....the world does not revolve around your angst about birth control and whether women should be able to kill their unborn children. The world really doesn't revolve around what you think. People world wide have other things to deal with. Real things. Like eating and living.

The Church is dealing with more important issues such as the actual and real deaths of living Coptic Christians, the persecution of Catholics and Christianity in Muslim controlled areas.

To Catholics the moral issues, which you Liberals find to be political debating points, are not just debating conundrums to think about and score points for votes....they are central to their faith. Central to the precepts of their faith and church and 'should' be non negotiable.

If you are Catholic and can't live with the church...find another faith. If you aren't Catholic, why the fuck do you care that the Pope is actually a Catholic and is representing the faithful of his flock?

I have a neighbor, a divorcee, who was horrified when the local priest wouldn't perform the ceremony for her marriage to a divorced guy with whom she's been living for years. Someone mentioned the movement in the Catholic Church to alter aspects of the traditional rites. She bemoaned the fact that the Church was able to get with the program on unimportant issues of that kind, but was too stubborn to change about "the things that really matter."

When a Catholic takes a stand against modernity's moral quandaries du jour, he does so based on 2000 years of moral thought. One may think it's bullshit, but at least you know where he's coming from, and how to work within his moral framework to discuss the issue.

But for the modern critics, there is never a discussion of "Look, here's where we're coming from....", so that their foundational moral categories can be examined & critiqued. They like to pretend it's all "received wisdom" that every right-thinking person accepts. The truth is, their moral foundations, when examined, are shaky indeed, and they just seek to limit the terms of discourse to make sure their opponents NEVER figure that out.

Their teachings about sex are to my way of thinking restrictive and stultifying.

In what way? Serious. What teachings of the Church are restricting and stultifying your sexual life?

The frowning upon fucking your neighbor's wife?

Maybe having to restrain yourself from inseminating your wife for a few days out of the month, if you decide to not have children just now? NOTE: this rhythm method is not contrary to the Church's view of deliberately thwarting procreation (aka birth control and abortion) At least this is what I was taught

Chastity before marriage? OK. That one is pretty stultifying :-D BUT...IT isn't jut the Catholic Church or the Christian religion that encourages this. It is also hard to adhere to rule #2, no artificial prevention of conception, if you are fucking around with everyone you can.

Perhaps these 'rules', that have been rules in society world wide for thousands of years, actually serve some purposes.

These representatives of the American media really are quite insular and intolerant of the practices and views of a worldwide religion of over 1 billion adherents. It really is an ugly display of the worst form of Americanism and I am embarrassed that those of other nations think we all act like they do.

You have often written here that you do not think the gay community will attempt to force churches to adhere to the drift of the country regarding gay marriage.

What I have said repeatedly is that I don't personally want the government to apply any coercion against religions, and that I don't think that there is any reasonable threat of that happening. The government isn't going to force the Catholic church to marry two gay dudes.

What I do support is shaming people for their bigotry, and religions don't get a pass on that just because they say that magic invisible sky fairy dude told them to hate on the gays.

Andy R. said..."The media see the Pope as 'a Supreme Court justice that they can't turn.'"

Actually, the media see the Pope as a bigot, but since it's not polite to call the Pope a bigot, they are trying to figure out how to make it clear what they think without explicitly saying it.

****

And Andy, I see the left-wing media as being populated by bigots. Bound and determined to demonize those with whom they disagree. People on the other side of the left's pet issues cannot merely be mistaken; they must be "bigots." For the left, it is not about an intellectual debate. It is about personal smears and political wins.

Bigotry, in this case, is exposed by those who use bigotry allegations as their tool.

I don't often listen to Rush. I really wish I had heard this segment. It is brilliant.

You have often written here that you do not think the gay community will attempt to force churches to adhere to the drift of the country regarding gay marriage.

What I have said repeatedly is that I don't personally want the government to apply any coercion against religions, and that I don't think that there is any reasonable threat of that happening. The government isn't going to force the Catholic church to marry two gay dudes.

He also has a bridge in Brooklyn on the market.

What I do support is shaming people for their bigotry

You can't be a Lefty if you're into shame. Coercion, maybe, but not shame; we left shame behind when it was OK to get pregnant out of wedlock and abort the kid (he never gets the memo...).

, and religions don't get a pass on that just because they say that magic invisible sky fairy dude told them to hate on the gays.

But he believes implicitly when magic visible Hyde Park fairy dude suddenly tells everybody not to hate on the gays.

We're all created in the image of that 'magic invisible sky fairy dude', we're all called to love one another. There are openly Catholic homosexuals. Their lives are not called to be alone and in shame, rather to take in all of the love from their family, friends, and even companionship.

The Church in simple terms connects that human sexuality is designed to create life, and without much verbiage can state, 1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament." In bold is no more then 35 words, how is this hate? And why are their organizations and politicians stating that this is homophobia?

But let me restate...

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

The Catholic Church gets it, the gay people can not be made straight? The answer, LOVE them for who they are!

Gay people or even straight unmarried people are not inferior to married people, marriage in the Catholic Church serves a purpose. It's a good purpose.

Civil marriage may disagree with this, but to say our disagreement is out of hate is a terrible lie.

@Renee: It's hard to integrate monitoring a woman's cervical mucus into your libido. The concept of cervical mucus is not as exciting as, say, hardened nipples. But I make no judgements....@DBQ: I simply wish that they Church for its own sake would loosen up a little about sex. The whole idea of celibacy for the clergy is an idea whose time has passed. It's better to marry than to burn, and it's better to marry than recruit young men with troubled sexuality. I recognize that the Church's record in harboring sexual criminals is no worse than that of the BBC, ANC,the Holllwood left, and the Penn football program, but the point is that it should be far, far better than such institutions......I come from an Irish Catholic background. Nobody in my family is a flaming libertine, but alcohol has gouged my family for many generations. The Church does not, of course, condone alcoholism, but they make a far bigger deal of sexual peccadilloes than they do of drinking. Liquor is not a good man's failing as the Irish say. In my era there were far more restrictions and guilt associated with casual sex than with binge drinking.

Kate, the Canadian blogger at Small Dead Animals, sent up the media wonderfully when Pope Benedict was elected:

Verdict On Pope: "Too Catholic"

The disappointment in the voices of the anchors during CTV news coverage was palpable. One got the sense they were hoping for an upset, and a politically correct "progressive" papal election angle to pursue.

"The new pope, Wang Chung One, the first from China, standing alongside his same-sex partner as he appeared on the balcony at the Vatican, introducing himself to a billion Catholics by declaring a woman's right to chooooooose... well, Lloyd, this is a turning point for the Church..."

There will be more of that in the coming hours. Watch for the negativity attached to the word "conservative".

Oh knock it off. Celibacy/Chastity is not the deal-breaker that those who have no intention of taking religious orders make it out to be. The financial burden of a married clergy to individual parishes would be the final nail in the coffin for most, however. So is the gay mafia infesting a lot of urban seminaries--put there by bleeding hearts hoping to make a home for gay men in the Church under the assumption that they would abide by the rules of celibacy/chastity.

For centuries, the Catholic Church has resisted fascism,mercantilism, communism,nationalism,globalism, and feminism. While far from perfect, it has put a brake on what society finds to be current and trendy, e.g., abortion, homosexuality, pornography, and unwed parenthood.

Is there a Cardinal of the Catholic Church that supports same sex marriage and gay rights?

There were and perhaps there still are. That's why the appointments of the last two Popes were so important. And that's why so much care has to be exercised in the selection of the every Pope. People ask why they "always" select "caretaker" Popes--those already up there in age, etc. It's because you need time for someone to be known by their actions. Better to be safe than sorry.

Well, it's not such a bad idea to have a "caretaker" Pope then. And, after all, care taking of the doctrine is one of the important things the Pope does. At least that's what I assume, since I'm not Catholic.

The Christian faith is either divinely inspired or it isn't. If it is, then it's inviolable.

As for the "issues of our time", normalizing premeditated murder and evolutionary dysfunction are the principal concerns of the Left? That would explain why their domains are rife with corruption and indigence.

And birth control, get the guy to share the expense. Surely the man and woman can afford to pay for their own pleasure.

This is one more reason to ignore "journalists". They are a special interest. They also cannot seem to self-moderate their behavior, which is why they are attempting to normalize their (?) dysfunctional behaviors through, oddly enough, not rationalization, but emotional appeals.

Perhaps they are the preachers of some cult. Similar to Jonestown, but slower and more insidious.

Many people want to See Sport Cars of International and beautiful Sport Racing Cars, The Best and Latest Sport Racing Car HyperSport Car, Sport Vehicles, Most Popular Concept Cars, upcoming racing cars and more strange vehicles with pictures and InformationWorldLatestVehicles.Com

The love God has for everyone and the love we have for each other isn't expressed through anal sex, oral sex, or even masturbation gay or straight.

Anal sex for example is not how one says 'I Love You' to another person.

Otherwise from the document you linked to.

"The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life."

Catholicism is the result of 3300 years of human experience and wisdom--given that we accept Jesus' Words that he wasn't replacing what came before. Lot of human urges/condition, pedophilia and pederasty among them, are not tolerated by society and the Church. Having the urge is not a crime or a sin--acting on it is. So the Church loves you Andy R. Just not what you do. The latter is in your hands. Control your urges. And stop being such a tosser.

What an excellent spokesperson (I can't use "man" as it certainly doesn't apply to you, for reasons having nothing to do with your sexuality) for the same sex marriage movement you are.

Perhaps you will have a death bed conversion when wasting away of super-aids, and be begging the "sky fairy" to prolong your worthless little existence.

It is only out of the knowledge that there are gays out there who are not such hateful pieces of shit like you that I can support any movement towards some sort of SSM. It takes great discipline to not hold you representative of homosexuals as a group.

It isn't about controlling urges, but finding the right path to loving others. I would love to see a civil union type law for non sexual friends. We shouldn't just see marriage as the only way to express such an idea in our laws.

"What I do support is shaming people for their bigotry, and religions don't get a pass on that just because they say that magic invisible sky fairy dude told them to hate on the gays."__________________

Sexuality is God's greatest gift and best joke. People are endlessly inventive in discovering new ways to ruin their lives over the subject. The resulting idiocy would be an long-running comedy show for any viewers from Alpha Centauri.

I'm an atheist. I also dislike the Catholic Church for various reasons. On top of that, I'm pro-contraception, pro-choice, and pro-gay-marriage -- and I have absolutely no problem with this choice of Pope.

I'm sorry, guys, but if you have a problem with the Catholic position on abortion, contraception and gay marriage the appropriate response is to not be Catholic, because Catholics are by definition opposed to abortion, contraception, and gay marriage. If you aren't, the Catholic Church isn't a good fit for you. Try one of the faiths that isn't those things.

Don't demand that a church with a billion members change fundamental beliefs to suit you. Join a church that actually aligns with your views of right and wrong. Cripes, Christians have been doing that for a thousand years.

Sounds lovely. Except for forcing others to do things like provide health coverage, pension benefits, etc. that go along with that. And sorting out/keeping track of those choices as circumstances, personal whims and fancies, change. I'm getting BFFed in the morning! Ding dong the bells are gonna chime!

Darrell, I was thinking in terms of standing in 'wrongful death suits' and situations in regards to hospital visitations.

It isn't the health/tax benefits issues that makes me sympathetic to the better arguments for legal recognized status for homosexual couples and others. It is situations, when a loved one is injured/dies in a tragic accident and the partner/companion/friend has no legal standing for their loss. It is those circumstances I think the laws should address, something most need should be done.

I don't see this as strictly a gay only issue, but really an issue for any non-married person. A single adult shouldn't be treated like a minor child. I know plenty of non-married adults, should we as a matter of law assume closest biological kin or should they have an easier way to designate their 'BFF' as the person they most trust?

Revenant: Your advice is much too practical and, after all, maybe not what Andy R wants to hear. Because, when you think about it, a very small fraction of the US population has made a very big amount of noise about this topic. I am sure that AndyR thinks that the same tactics broadly used, globally used, will have the same impact. I think he will be disappointed that the rest of the world, particularly the third world the Catholic world, does not care one whit about being called "bigots." The concept alone does not exist in most places.

I understand, Renee. But hospitals don't get involved in such matters now--and for a long time--for fear of lawsuits and bad publicity. They just talk with the aptients and abide by those wishes. And every other relationship right can be conveyed by a legal contract. And many lawyers have low-cost packages that do just that since it's become basically a boiler-plate issue--I've heard $300. Don't know how common that is. Simple limited power of attorney agreements can be put together on your own with only a notary required. Laywers here might disagree--but than again, they have the new luxury cars and fancy homes.

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

It is situations, when a loved one is injured/dies in a tragic accident and the partner/companion/friend has no legal standing for their loss. It is those circumstances I think the laws should address, something most need should be done.

Those solutions already exist. They are called Trusts, Wills, Living Wills or Medical Directives, Life Insurance, Joint Tenancy on Property and financial assets, to name just a few solutions. Those things require that people think a few moments ahead and make some plans.

Why try to reinvent the wheel or drastically try to change society to accommodate a small minority of people, when the solutions to those things

AndyR the bigot said....What I have said repeatedly is that I don't personally want the government to apply any coercion against religions, and that I don't think that there is any reasonable threat of that happening. The government isn't going to force the Catholic church to marry two gay dudes.

You lie. It is all part of the plan and it will be the next part of the agenda.

We know you are lying. You are the epitome of a bigot who would not allow Catholics, Muslims, Mormons or Jews to practice their religion and follow the doctrines of their faith.

It is only a matter of time until the attacks begin.

Anybody thinks that the likes of AndyR and his ilk would be tolerant of freedom of religion are fooling themselves.

Using Christianity's most sacred time of the year to promote homophobic bigotry and malicious discrimination? That's utterly contemptible. Every time I think the U.S. Catholic bishops can't possibly sink any lower into the cesspool of anti-gay bigotry, they find a new way to do exactly that.

It's interesting that the Church chose another Pope with links to fascism. Apparently the Church knows no shame. Then again, we already knew that based on the way it handled the Catholic sex abuse cases.

It's like those media folks thought that the Cardinals were going to elect a Universal Unitarian or something, and were shocked when they didn't. It's the whole Pauline Kael thing, where everyone the media folks know is either a U.U. or an atheist. The concept of people actually, you know, believing in something is completely alien to them.

Jake Diamond said...It's interesting that the Church chose another Pope with links to fascism. Apparently the Church knows no shame. Then again, we already knew that based on the way it handled the Catholic sex abuse cases.

I think it's more interesting that they chose a pope closely related to battling poverty. It's almost like they poked the mote in Jake's eye. Of course inequality denier Jake's attention--like Andy R--is focused on the more important issues.

Oh, the Church has always yapped about poverty. They don't do much about it, mind you, but they sure like to talk about it. It's a bit like how Republicans like you shriek about the evils of deficits but they keep giving us Republican presidents who love to use the national credit card.

Using Christianity's most sacred time of the year to promote homophobic bigotry and malicious discrimination? That's utterly contemptible. Every time I think the U.S. Catholic bishops can't possibly sink any lower into the cesspool of anti-gay bigotry, they find a new way to do exactly that.

Jesus wept.

Blasphemy is a sin and there is no plea bargain in Heaven.

Besides, I don't recall any point in His teachings where Christ told people to forsake the laws of the Old Testament.

Jake Diamond said...

It's interesting that the Church chose another Pope with links to fascism. Apparently the Church knows no shame.

Charges dismissed, but who cares about facts?

Then again, we already knew that based on the way it handled the Catholic sex abuse cases.

The man made of dumbshit proves it yet again.

Oh, the Church has always yapped about poverty. They don't do much about it, mind you, but they sure like to talk about it.

DBQ, But they have no standing in a wrongful death suit, you can't contract that standing.

@ Renee. Neither do siblings have standing for a wrongful death law suit. However, in some states common law marriages have standing. I would assume....but don't know for sure....that a Civil Union or Domestic Partnership, as exists in California and some other states, would also confer standing.

Since (if) a Civil Union, which already exists, does this....why do we want to overturn society for a minority interest, when there isn't a problem in the first place?

The whole idea of celibacy for the clergy is an idea whose time has passed.

First question: why? Do you think celibacy was easier in a past age?

Besides, don't you realize the Catholic Church has married clergy? They're called deacons.

Anyone who wants to know what having married priests would be like need only look at how it works out for deacons. We get more applicants to be deacon, but they take longer to study and prepare--because they have families and full time jobs. For that reason also, deacon candidates tend to wait longer to become deacons.

> Do you really need me to demonstrate the problems created by promiscuity? Not just personal, and health problems, but social problems?

> The financial and political media are increasingly talking about the growing demographic problem that no one knows how to fix. Russia is dying. Japan is dying. Europe is dying. Now the birth dearth has come to the U.S. Declining birth rates are spreading throughout Latin America and even the Muslim world. China will get old before it gets rich. Looks like contraception and population control isn't working out so well?

> I predict it'll take a couple of decades, but a similar vindication of the Church's teaching on marriage will manifest itself. As Catholic writer Mark Shea said, we go through two phases: the first is, "What could it hurt"? followed by, "How were we supposed to know?"

Andy R. Have a look at the decline of the Episcopal Church in the USA versus the Roman Church. The former is dying a self congratulatory death while the latter is growing through the immigrant population. You can howl "bigot" all you want but you are mistaken about the Church.

Putting aside for the moment the point of the church year, and even putting aside Lent from an other-than perspective, there's a rather good argument to be made that Easter, itself, is not the most Holy day, though indeed it is a mighty Feast and celebration Day.

Consider the Great Vigil of Easter, a.k.a. Holy Saturday, for example (which by no means is strictly a large "C," much less "RC," catholic reality).

Quite momentous, that service, when it is actually observed (and it's not just Catholics who are called to do so, or who do, whether or not they do).

There is an inherent [big "B"] beauty to Holy Week, in all its various glories and humilities. I say that as someone who walked away and therefore has fallen away (and vice versa). Yet still I know, and have little patience for opining sorts who never bother to learn much about even that which they spend so much time attacking.

Revenant: Even you turn a blind, gratuitous eye, often enough, in the event, when you can't resist grinding an ax. Even you. Just sayin'. Not sayin' I'm better, because I know I'm not, as does everyone else.

Looks like contraception and population control isn't working out so well?

Compared to what? The norm during human history was "people have lots of children, of which all but two or so die of disease, war or starvation before having children of their own". That's why the world's population was basically stable for thousands of years. This is the position favored by the Catholic Church; have lots of kids, then watch most of them die.

Now, many devout Catholics will tell you that isn't their real position. This is because they are bad at math. If the average number of children who survive long enough to reproduce exceeds two per woman, the population grows. The maximum population of Earth is not infinite, therefore the long-term average for number of children who live to reproduce will not exceed two.

The rate for us is hovering around 2, and for the planet as a whole it is 2.45. We're fine for now.

Honestly, though, don't you feel a bit silly acting like you think "we did it for a long time" is equivalent to "it was a good idea" or "it was the right thing to do"?

Funny, how it's also worked for a long time.

I know the Libertarians are only against anything they think is going to inconvenience them, but supporting the family as the primary institution of society and civilization seems a better idea than tossing marriage in favor of a Cloward-Piven anarchy where anything goes until it all collapses.

I think celibacy has a place and an appeal for those in the monastic orders. But I can see more pluses than minuses for having married priests at a pastoral level. If you're going to live in the world, perhaps it's best to live fully in the world. I wouldn't ask for diet advice from an anorexic, and I would be hesitant to seek sexual guidance from elderly virgins. That might not be a fair statement, but that's a lot of people's feelings on the matter. The clergy have staked out an extreme position, and the laity are distrustful of their sexual advice.....I was raised and educated in the Church. I have nothing but gratitude and admiration for the nuns and priests I encountered growing up. The overwhelming majority of the clergy are worthwhile people leading worthy lives. Granted, but all those scandals happened..... I think choosing to be a priest is something admirable, but if you want to attract the younger generation, ixnay on the celibacy thing. I just think a few priests with children would be better able to understand the incalculable damage that pedophiles can do. The Church really missed the call on that one.

William, I with my husband helped out with marriage prep/precana at my parish. The deacon and his wife run the weekend. Precana I believe is a part of Vatican II as are uniformed RCIA programs for converts.

I think a decent argument can be made that celibacy for priests is less important now that we don't have an inherited aristocracy, so there's less concern that priests will get caught in up dynastic thinking.

But, having said that, it's entirely up to the Catholic Church what to do and think about that issue, not to fashion mavens.

OK, I'm a lapsarian, and it is my addiction to discount whores rather thany any doctrinal issues that has caused my alienation from the Church. I admit that I have no standing on this issue. Still, in recent years Ireland, which used to be the priest factory for the Church, has been ordaining only two or three priests and in some years none. That's not a hopeful sign.

Well William, the problem with Ireland is the same problem as the rest of Europe--Marxism. And while some young men do join there to try to destroy the Church from the inside, others just follow the godless Euro practices of smoking cigarettes, drinking wine (booze/ale) and contemplating suicide. Lots of options with Marx.

It must be so frustrating for them. Good. At least there's some part of the world and the heart that they cannot reach. http://www.americavictorious.com/2013/03/16/not-so-easy-to-corrupt-the-incorruptible/

It must be so frustrating for them. Good. At least there's some part of the world and the heart that they cannot reach. http://www.americavictorious.com/2013/03/16/not-so-easy-to-corrupt-the-incorruptible/

I haven't read all the comments here, but as far as I can tell, you've all been respectful and kind towards us. I am so very, very grateful for that. As a Catholic who is active in the Church and loves it to its core, it has been very painful to read the comment threads over at the WaPo and other places and see so much hate and ignorance directed at us.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your thoughtful charity towards us.

Okay, it's very old news that reporters don't Get Religion. Hence the need for the website getreligion.org.

But here's a fun question: WHAT IS IT about the life experience or worldview of a reporter that prevents him from being able to see life through the eyes of a person of faith? That makes him an utterly untrustworthy source of information about anything that touches on religious issues?

I can think of a few things, and most of them are obvious; e.g., that since openly right-wing reporters experience hostile work environments and inevitably get fired or shuffled into dead-end career tracks, most reporters are leftist and are therefore inclined to pooh-pooh anything that doesn't lick the boots of tenured academics and pop stars when the latter proffer their opinions about life.

That's well understood.

But here's something I think folks may have missed:

Most reporters have never willingly submitted to the judgment and authority of any other person except in a resentful way, driven by the fear of what would happen if they DIDN'T. That is to say: They've experienced being craven and spineless, but they haven't experienced being knightly, in the sense of kneeling before a king or a lord.

Now religion requires a person to submit -- and (except perhaps in Islam) not merely out of craven fear, but advisedly and lovingly out of respect for God's wisdom and lovingkindness -- to God's judgment about how they should eat and drink and party and have sex and work and treat their children and vote and think. This is particularly pronounced in faiths (e.g. Catholic and Orthodox Christianity) where God is held to have anointed human beings (the bishops in Apostolic Succession) to roles of authority on His behalf.

A Catholic doesn't have to obey every whim of his bishop; he's not to make an idol out of the man. But a Catholic does do more than merely "respect the office." He also obeys when the bishop commands something which is within his authority to command (e.g. accepting as authoritative and true certain teachings on matters of faith and morals, and accepting as obligatory certain disciplines such as weekly Mass attendance and fasting before receiving the Eucharist).

I suspect that a lot of reporters have never once taken an attitude of respecting and obeying just authority in this fashion. They've sucked up, but they've never knelt.

It is a difficult skill, you know. It requires overcoming certain instincts: Like learning to float in a swimming pool. The water will hold you if you quit sitting up and stop fighting it.

My suspicion is that THAT part of Chris Matthews' and Piers Morgans' nervous systems is entirely un-exercised. It's flabby; atrophied beyond recognition. Every time they claim to be "Catholic" they can't help but reflexively follow the declaration with, "...but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the Church's teaching on everything!"

And that's why actual religious people -- or people who have the experience of humbly submitting to reality as they understand it, like Penn Jillette -- can detect and debunk the cultural-catholic poseurs so easily. They don't act like real Catholics; they don't sound like real Catholics; they don't move like real Catholics. The moment you get 'em in the water, it's obvious they don't know how to lie back and float.

So I don't know that there's any solution for how reporters don't Get Religion. Each individual reporter needs, in order to Get Religion, something like the experience of repenting his sins, acknowledging the error of his ways and his worldview, and saying "Yes" to God.

Poor Andy, he doesn't understand that we are ALL intrinsically disordered in some way. I am intrinsically disordered in laziness and gluttony. I don't believe God thinks lust is any worse than either of those things. ANYTHING that is more important to me than glorifying God and having a loving relationship with Him is sin. It's just that these days homosexuals choose to make their sin public and the First Lady is making a public stand against gluttony. I am not a Catholic because I think they are wrong about both birth control and perpetual virginity of Mary. And I think the latter is WAY more important theologically than the former. I read the scripture and it says children are a blessing from the Lord and I know it's true because I have four of them and only one was conceived when I wasn't on birth control. God gave me blessings I didn't ask for and I thank him. (I've used BC since my teens to minimize very painful ovarian cysts and hormone related migraines.) The perpetual virginity of Mary and other Catholic teachings taken from tradition rather than Scripture bothers me more because God plainly stated in the Revelation that He would punish anyone who added to His Word or subtracted from it. Since I can't subtract from it, I can't make abortion okay and I can't make sex outside marriage okay. Since I can't add to it, I can't make Marian devotion add up and I can't find a proscription on birth control because it didn't exist when it was written. (And before someone brings up slavery - God didn't command his people to own slaves or buy more, He commanded them to treat them well if they already downed them and to respect their owner if they were the slave. The Bible is mostly a book about relationships.)

For what it's worth: I grew up Baptist and had exactly the same views as yourself re: contraception and Mary. My goal was to believe and practice the faith "delivered once for all to the apostles," whatever that was, because by doing so I would be kneeling to Jesus Christ. (See my previous post re: "kneeling.")

And so my views were similar to yours because those views are what one naturally tends to arrive at if one attempts to reconstruct the faith of the apostles using solely that subset of details about Christianity that got included in the Bible.

As it happens I kept pressing the Lord in prayer to lead me to more truth. (I have a thing about capital-T Truth.) And by a complex process He led me where I'd never expected -- to become Catholic! (Though I suspect I still "speak my Catholicicsm with a vaguely evangelical protestant accent.")

Suffice it to say: There are reasons. The Catholics do have a sensible explanation re: Mary and the contraception thing. But it's an explanation which seems dubious if you (a.) are hearing it for the first time and (b.) are hearing it out of the context of a bunch of other foundational information which few non-Catholics (and many Catholics) don't quite grasp.

Anyway, I'm not responding to your post to start arguing for the Catholic faith or anything. I actually wanted to applaud your post.

But, at the same time, I wanted you to hear that some of the teachings of the Catholics that seem to come utterly out-of-the-blue aren't as random as they seem at first glance. Jimmy Akin and Scott Hahn are the folks who helped me understand that stuff.

<blockquote>"...God plainly stated in the Revelation that He would punish anyone who added to His Word or subtracted from it."--Mel</blockquote>

That passage in Revelation only refers to changes in the text of Revelation itself. At the time the Book of Revelation was written, the Bible - which is a compilation of books - didn't yet exist. The Catholics assembled it a few hundred years later.

And who knows better what a book teaches (and what is also true but not included); those who compiled it, produced copies of it, and preached it under the authority given them by Jesus Christ or some crank small-time university professor who a millenium later decides to redact what he doesn't like in the book?

I could've "gone there" with Mel and pointed out that the first person in history to state that the canon of the New Testament consisted of the 27 books used today was Athanasius in his Easter letter around 370...and that he did so not merely based on the known authenticity of the books and their origin in apostolic ministries but on the fact that they agreed entirely with the faith as he had received it by unbroken tradition from the apostles -- and Athanasius was, in a word, a Catholic.

And of course that judgment was really only confirmed to the Christian faithful in general when Pope Damasus approved it at Rome around 380...thus making it entirely unsurprising when Augustine and his fellows at Carthage and Hippo in 391 and 393 set forth the same canon for churches in North Africa, or when Augustine said he would not have even known to take Scripture as authoritative, had the Church not told him.

And of course from then on for about 1,100 years no one disputed about the canon, because the folks with proper authority to teach what the Bible was had exerted that authority. Martin Luther, coming in the 1500's to suddenly toss out 7 Old Testament and 4 New Testament books (Hebrews, Revelation, Jude, and James, if I recall) was decidedly late to the game...and of course most Protestants couldn't stomach losing the New Testament books Luther disliked, so they wound up being included in the Protestants' Bibles after all. There are arguments by which some try to claim this new canon makes sense -- that it's okay to say that Christians were clueless about the content of their Holy Writ for 3/4ths of the elapsed history of their faith -- but after some years of examining them, I no longer find any of them convincing.

So I could have gone there. But it's rather a lot to lay on a person all at once, isn't it? (I mean, it took me a good solid year's hard thinking to cope with the consequences of realizing that nowhere does the Bible state that the Bible is intended to be the sole authoritative source for the doctrines of the Christian faith, or that it even spells out all the important doctrines...or even which books should be included in the Bible. If you grow up in a Sola Scriptura environment, the implications of all that can really be a shock to the system.)

But Mel struck me as having no animus towards Catholics at all, but as taking the view she takes because she takes the Bible seriously (a good thing) and takes truth seriously (a good thing). So I figured a light touch was the polite and civilized way to go.

(Hey, if the Holy Spirit calls her attention to the topic and leads her to start reading Ignatius of Antioch, Clement's letter to the Corinthians, Irenaeus of Lyons, and the other writings of the apostles' earliest students, we know where it'll lead. Just ask Scott Hahn and Marcus Grodi and John Henry Newman and the rest! So, no need to come across as pushy.)

I don't suppose your usage of "intrinsically disoredered" to apply to gluttony and laziness (and BOY can I relate to that, sister!) was prompted by The Anchoress, was it?

If it wasn't, then by all means you should check out what The Anchoress recently said on that very topic. (If you don't know already, The Anchoress is the blog-name of Elizabeth Scalia, a great writer and blogger at Patheos.com. She did a blog post ("Elizabeth Scalia: Intrinsically Disordered Human Being") about 3 or 4 days ago...your comment here practically seemed like it was quoting her. Great minds, eh?

Perhaps they are the preachers of some cult. Similar to Jonestown, but slower and more insidious.

The subjects of today's post from our host, are priests of the Cult of the Credentialed and Connected Omniscient ...

... who have more blind faith in their own ability to accurately and completely perceive the universe, than both the Pope and this evangelical Protestant have in our common God ...

... a Cult that seeks to impose their faith as the One True Way by the coercive force of law, with a fundamentalist zeal that makes Baptist preachers look like loose-topped libertines out for beads at Mardi Gras ...

... a Cult obsessed with CASUALLY re-defining an institution that has transcended culture and religion to act as a stabilizer of human society for millenia, just so a few people can feel warm and fuzzy about their choices in life ...

... a Cult that works to maintain a "flexible" line between human life and "tissue", so they are never subjected to an inconvenient truth somewhere in their lineage ... all the while ignoring how such flexibility could empower - and even predisposition - others to re-draw that line so that even these acolytes would end up on the wrong side of it

... a Cult whose greatest fear is that those they consider "heretics" might become credible in the public eye to such a degree, members of the Cult might have their mellow harshed with principled criticism of their own choices in life ...

... a Cult whose spokesmen are among the more prominent poster children for Romans 1:22.